Dooley, R v

Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Crim 2748 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION No: 200702974 A4 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL Thursday, 11th October 2007 B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL HER HONOUR JUDGE GODDARD QC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E G I N A v KATE GEMMA DOOLEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr N Usher appeared on behalf of the Applicant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J U D G M E N T JUDGE GODDARD: On 19th March 2007, at the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street, this applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a Class A drug (heroin) with intent to supply and possession of a Class C drug (cannabis resin) with intent to supply. On 4th May 2007 she was sentenced on the possession of the heroin with intent to five years' imprisonment, with 18 months' imprisonment concurrent on the possession of the Class C drug with intent. She now renews her application for leave to appeal against sentence. The matters that give rise to these charges occurred in December 2006. On 14th of that month, December, police, in conjunction with the Deputy Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Forest Bank in Salford, carried out an operation in which searches were to be conducted on all legal visits taking place. Each legal representative was informed that the prison had a drug policy. An amnesty bin was in operation in the foyer of the prison premises before entering through secure doors. There were also notices within the prison saying that drugs were not permitted. When the applicant arrived she said that she was on a legal visit on behalf of the solicitors who employed her, she being a trainee solicitor, and that she was booked to see a prisoner called Scott Jeffries. All the documentation she provided was checked. Her identification was authorised and she had a letter of authority. Although she was in fact a trainee solicitor with that particular firm, the client was not actually a client of theirs and she had no authority to act in that capacity for that firm. He was a client of another firm and visited because they had become friendly. When she went through the secure doors a dog detected the presence of drugs. She was taken to a secure area and she was asked if she had anything she should not have. She took off her right boot and took out a package which contained, as was later discovered, 8.13 grams of cannabis. Initially she said she did not know what was in it, but then said it contained "weed". When asked if she had anything else, the applicant placed the hand down the front of her jeans and knickers and removed two packages from the area of her vagina. One contained 10.6 grams of heroin at 39 per cent purity, the other 5.08 grams of cannabis. The street value of the heroin was just over £1,000, but in prison its value was substantially more. She was arrested. A mandatory drug test at the police station tested positive for cocaine. She made no comment when interviewed. We should add that although this was a plea of guilty, there was to be a trial of the issue, that being that she believed that the heroin was in fact cannabis, but that was a trial of issue that was not persisted in when the matter came to court. The applicant is a young woman of 24 with no previous convictions. She explained to the author of the pre-sentence report that she had visited prison as a legal executive. She had received telephone calls from Jeffries, who had been given her telephone number by other clients. She had had daily calls and felt friendly towards him. She was given the drugs by a third party. She took them not for personal gain, but as a favour in a developing friendship. She was described as balanced, talented, educated, socially aware and that her lifetime career had been thrown away. The pre-sentence report made the point that even a short sentence would have an impact. There were letters of support from family and friends as well as from the applicant. We have read them all and appreciate the shock and tragedy her actions have brought to her family and friends and the hard work and study that has been thrown away. That tragedy was clearly recognised by His Honour Judge Smith in his sentencing remarks. He gave her credit for her plea, but reduced the amount of credit because she had, in his view, put forward a false story about her knowledge of the heroin to engineer a reduced sentence. We recognise, however, she did not persist in a Newton hearing. He set out the serious consequences of Class A drugs in prison, bringing them in was perpetuating the untold misery caused by addiction, and it was more serious if brought in by one who had legitimate access. Counsel in his grounds and before us recognised in his submission that there would be a substantial prison sentence, but he submitted that, firstly, it was wrong to withhold full credit for the plea entered at the PCMH and, secondly, five years was excessive. He relied on the Attorney General's Reference No 75 of 2002 [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 109. There the offender had pleaded guilty to three offences of attempting to supply Class A drugs to a friend in prison and had been sentenced to five months. In the course of his judgment, Rose LJ agreed with the submission of counsel for the Attorney General that the appropriate sentence would have been at least three years. Counsel acknowledged that Miss Dooley's offence is aggravated by the amount of the heroin, but only to a limited extent by her position as it was clear that everyone was going to be searched. So far as the plea is concerned, he submitted that more credit should have been given, and although in his submission it is not easy to say how much, he submits that on a trial the sentence would have been between six and seven and a half years. No reduction was given for 10 per cent in view of the more onerous licence conditions. He also submits that the learned judge did not take sufficient account of the fact that she had thrown her life away. There is no doubt a human tragedy behind this case as we have listened to it and read the papers, but the hard facts are that Miss Dooley purported to be at the prison for legal purposes. Albeit she could still be searched, she had got the visit on a false basis. She had internally secreted the heroin. The amount was not just for personal consumption but could be circulated. As the learned trial judge said, drugs in prison are a curse and introducing them is very serious. We acknowledge the plea that was tendered, albeit credit is tempered by the proposed but abandoned Newton hearing. Having considered all these matters, we come to the conclusion that this sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and leave is accordingly refused. SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE